JUDGMENT :

Ajit Borthakur, J.

1. Heard Mr. T.T. Tara, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Kardak Ete, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh, assisted by Mr. Hage Laxmi, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of State Respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, the brief facts of the case, in hand, is that the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, was enacted for better protection of human rights by constituting a National Human Rights Commission and also the State Human Rights Commissions and Human Rights Courts. Section 2(1)(d) of the Act defines "human rights" as the rights relating to life, liberty, equality, dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the international covenants and enforceable by Courts in India. The above rights are traceable to Part-III of the Indian Constitution guaranteeing the fundamental rights and particularly Articles 14, 19, 20, 21 and 22 Sections 21 to 29 of Chapter-V of the Act deals with the constitution of State Human Rights Commission and its function thereto. Accordin